Comparison of lead failure manifestation of Biotronik Linox with St. Jude Medical Riata and Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead
- 42 Downloads
To compare lead failure manifestation and lead performance of the Biotronik Linox/Sorin Vigila defibrillator lead (Linox group) with the St. Jude Medical Riata/Riata ST (Riata group) and Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads (Fidelis group).
We assessed the performance of all aforementioned leads implanted at our center and investigated the manifestation of lead failures.
Of 93 Linox, 86 Riata, and 81 Fidelis leads implanted at our center, 11 (12%), 22 (26%), and 25 (31%) leads failed during a median follow-up of 46, 61, and 84 months, respectively. Inappropriate shocks were delivered in 64% (Linox), 5% (Riata), and 32% (Fidelis) of lead failures; a device alert was noted in none (Linox), 5% (Riata), and 52% (Fidelis); and lead failure was a coincidental finding in 36% (Linox), 91% (Riata), and 16% (Fidelis) of cases (p < 0.001). Non-physiological high rate signals were observed in 73% (Linox), 27% (Riata), and 80% (Fidelis) of lead failures (p = 0.001) and damaged lead integrity was found in 36% (Linox), 73% (Riata), and 24% (Fidelis) of cases (p = 0.064). Lead survival at 5 years was 88%, 92%, and 71% for Linox, Riata, and Fidelis group, respectively.
The most frequent clinical manifestation of lead failure was inappropriate shocks for Linox, coincidental finding for Riata and device alert for Fidelis leads. Non-physiological high rate signals were frequently observed in Linox and Fidelis lead failures whereas in Riata lead failures, a damaged lead integrity was the predominant finding.
KeywordsDefibrillator lead Lead failure Linox Riata Sprint fidelis
Cardiac resynchronization therapy
Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
St. Jude Medical
We would like to thank Dik Heg for the assistance in the statistical analysis of this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was conducted in accordance with the local institutional committee on human research and national regulatory authorities.
Conflict of interest
A. Lam received an educational grant from the “Swiss Heart Rhythm Foundation” for a fellowship at the Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux-Pessac, France. A. Haeberlin has received travel and educational support from Medtronic. A. Medeiros-Domingo has received travel support from Amgen. J. Seiler has received travel educational support from Biosense Webster and his spouse is an employee of Boston Scientific. S. Baldinger has received travel support from LivaNova. L. Roten has received travel support from Biosense Webster and Boston Scientific. St. Buehler, E. Goulouti, R. Sweda, F. Noti, H. Servatius, and H. Tanner have no disclosures.
- 10.van Malderen SC, Szili-Torok T, Yap SC, Hoeks SE, Zijlstra F, Theuns DA. Comparative study of the failure rates among 3 implantable defibrillator leads. Heart Rhythm. 2016.Google Scholar
- 14.Schmutz M, Delacretaz E, Schwick N, Roten L, Fuhrer J, Boesch C, et al. Prevalence of asymptomatic and electrically undetectable intracardiac inside-out abrasion in silicon-coated Riata(R) and Riata(R) ST implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167:254–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Parkash R, Thibault B, Mangat I, Coutu B, Bennett M, Healey J, et al. Canadian registry of implantable electronic device outcomes: surveillance of the Riata lead under advisory. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2016;9.Google Scholar